Skip to main content

Full text of "An answer to the renegades : critique of anti-Marxism"

See other formats




- 

•- 



■ r. ;*> 







CWTIQUi OF ANTI - MARXISM 



." 






— 




1 . . . . -: 



' 



: ' 



• 



Has Become #f Marxism? 



■ .4 j 

■■ 

■ 
• - 



> ... • 

- 

- Edmund Wilton 



• 



Caflf«*l 



Out Of Th% 



ten GitLw 



- Jan VaWii 



4 



a&erialispn and a 

3«r 



Price : 10 Cents 



foiuHenary Wodeass Lsc??uo, U.ECJu^ 



l>->!i; --' '- 



% ^^ ' ' i 



AC^i 







■ 



■m 




T ' HAS HAPPENED 
TO;THE(tRITI ; CS OF 

, >: MAPvX.lS^M.?' 






Gitlow, y^ltln, 'jl'laon *+r> 7t +£^11:?-. . ^astaan, Hock. 

«e«lt?iS*ft,ct ttfle^i?™' 10 ^ al ?th"««i of them, .ftr 

exposes, they <o ntrlbute greatly to thf^-.^ e ^ ot a^^^ 
movenent, and mst >, e ^LESS 7 . the .*- sori entetion In the l»t»r 



Fornan Thomas r.?rty-, vjh<dh =n™^+=- ,, C - UJL ' VriiB ovgm of 
rejected.the *Wta£atol™o?E2°SSa T,a ^ otl , a ? and has alw< ^ 
it, i 8 h Siting public."*™ tefZ*aiL g J Vang liP-servicte to* 
karxisn. ■ " w, carry .Hlson's open ettack on 



_.,_.. T . ■--- - —.;.■■- --'■* - - t - - -"'■•,■ ---— --T— — -.-.-■ 



/ 



«i.lsdTL .as^s .. . "Wbathad he^pene'dlio; yaTxisin" and then -pro c eefis 



to telj. up. - w « ^ay asK 7 . -'Watt nas narroenedto the Crixicsvdf J.'arjii,?" 
:fte have. ^-jpfl grounds to aslc thlaYquastio-i. ^ th© early sta^e c: 

rrfthe ..aolamieo agPiAst Harris the serlbus/otraonants d* the :o rk W 
^ class were fit ljasWooS enough to Tr-**ftt r the factual oas« of 

:??Sif rH - an3t ^ ^> argu * ««ai«at J lt, 1 But the raft of opponents 
^SS^^rSS %^ lll9 r t6 a ^ e ^inst.tne theoretical 
Se^+- votSTS ^ a ^yn^Y TOke --assertions, ^nich 3> ,not re- 

, present Marxism ,ena T ar-gue egainsttfr ese Straw men, Or tjpy Talree 

- . the- argument on .^mr.J ective or • rer* naf plane en e &«?■ 'on that 

' •fiSi™? ?w P £4 0ap ? ies ^ ev ? r Wtea.the case of Dialectic-Mater- : 

have the fairness to -at least sfiate v;nat" the theories of these tvb 
nien r/erej let alone try to disprove themg 

5H!3 TIEGHISS 




A-^JjSS^p-^AA -^Ijon, KerxLsntf I^ex in its original form- :1s 
Sa?t2£ \£/£^ is "» J¥*eee.-uisra rT ^ uto:>ienl«n. t^ asse rtioi 
does not even have a thread of truth to it. Tt is the system of 
Marxism wJudh shovm the utter futility of the systems of JuSim 
ItaaBwis* mC the Utonisn move^nS of fet b^o^4 -ib" *f r 
ail of the ;p-ther. exploiters -rfiiloso^iies. ' , 



nrt ™> 4K ?2f € ®i i * hese - ^ectte desertions let ua at "»e»st resent 
some .of the funtenentala of the site tea of Vexod^ Dialect ■ e r!£? 

Se laL of"^ ^1-L?f * lsto , r ¥ y * history "of class striWles. 

ii.1 iJ?i! 1 canitaUet mode o f ? rof uction, Capitol'' at dec V 

orientals nreeehte<3 by the ovsten of i-l^S* ^£ *** the3e ^ n ~ 
development of isoeiety, * °tUsrxLm reflect the factual 

f /1 " 
«ia.cABBB; relations* A change in the csthocVof 

■..','■■■' '''?"$ \r 



_ ■••■ 



- *-£5 - 



:viri— 



such 



the ^cess-ties -of 2ife" rr.f » di^.to -^ e --" 

T-iesVa -^in^^r-5 tL P ^?*i^ ^ fi stfcinl-revbiikon in 

t or its aSefece »£j ^H°^i on > not the ua <= °* 
«*j rafter to|& ^ £* ?*% '*■ «* s *«tch of the 
eraj •» ifce* Contrary inT^vStt^SV 16 *!! "f? 11051 ? <* the w>loi1> 

to end thl reformer!^ 3 tt «,<?*£ ^t between the re- 
- recent fif lit s oJm*?! m.^+^i 8 rr *S a fo ""' Recedes. Cr.e of 

rtlan oAhe old Left gS??™' 38 *?"** * n th9 *!*■ 
■ of Schnctnan nnO ^te^^^^SS 1 .^ 8 * 

sain problens with wb^cfc tWwt™ "^-^ of altitudes toward ta° 

or tm.^oh owl^S^^^JV not, aiota aw^*" 
wwjtngng reading, ;:r. Si«^ »+SS lnk ^ ir '^--^ - »*>re 
per-, with not proof? After thi/?^ thSn V*~ e assertions on your 

nth it, by stating Wt* *,£" «£, t, 8 ? S^ 8 "* ^^ '»* 

fata any liberal or libor book t+.JZ T~ 6 ii:Lson **«* °™ «* go 
Jit= the direct- ednl^tot^^rf E.^?^"** book5 *^S 
t» see even one book. or ser?o^ -SLS*^* lx,t wehave ** th* day 
ory stetaenta exiats'te ttf^rtt^SJWW 1 ? ^T ?•* «m*wi«oir . 
--^•■-—3. ^ c -ra-ix-nes of iferx and En^eis on the j^jjr 



isnms cciTjnjTrafS 



^"--?««i*Mlal'tom d th| e iS5 e <1 ??* ^ considerable aaoufau rt T . b _ 
.Mat aid Lenin and hi*-™w£ »* ri 0i '• arxi SE for hie n^A r i 

*Sa?* n V5.*» ^io^Ve^onsTof *J »f 4 -pol«Mtaf i the 

--orsnip of the Iroletarie?" If thl -^„ th ? 5ovip *s» of the M*. 
ionfil revolution, of the ror e to ^ P ;o S 2"%? le J' tion ' of '*• "aV 




<5 







^ 



. 



Poge. ! 4 a 



HARXIST'COKC^PTldl'r OF H1STOHY 



• Instead, &e get thi s Kind of "theoretical" material, "T&e" 

^act that the Ppovisionalar^veTOm^t of Ker.ensky desired to con tin- 

, ,ue the war and pat' it ^a'a un likely to distribute food and land" to 

> the starving Bipians -would tnus in itself, have teen. almost enough 

»; to make Lenin ^k solve .to overthrow ik,* even without, the motivation 

provided by the.?*ai*:d.3ts conception of history." 3hus according to 

n^iclence 1 ©? fev^gi ^SX+JXS ?^ ^ SS 311 ^ of * n accidental obi- - 
_t u :" ce °. ,. seveia - Tactors; the war-, the land Question, hnn^. 



of tKVp^tf ' S2* SJtSS ^^P* 3 *-***, the characterization 

Soviets; EtagSa SStoS SofS IFSiiw? 1 SW - ? 11 ^ ? nev e3 ^ s s la *& 
Ear* etc.^hich^fvin^of 1 SPSlffift - ■****«•*• (?) ^ 



3EPS lOUXO soci/iia;. 



correct pokuo^or?^™ t£t ~?^° tonly * e ° es aot Resent Hie 
foraetion, StiliS ^ ^t^r^il *^ 381118 .^ 18 * historical in- 
austrialtiiation of the Soviet Ift^on ^t^ 6 ^ a r? la ? for th * in ~ 

:W/^s1f\i^ 7, S U ,^ n ?/ r S Cle f 5 "** 3 °*-*W **« «wlo£i.s of 



I :,-■..': 






: F^gO- o ^ 

Karxs 1 oositionlon the Jew, sn3 the Proletariat. *3ie ojroression of 
the Jew wr.s not {the "analogy" Ihra used to show the o^nression of 
the writer, Iter did Uara select tfts Jew- orYany other nation- 1 itv 
for leadership, j Ihe line of demarcation Kane laic" v J oTO\rg tne 
CLASS line # In this structure the Jews had their nlace* all Jew- 
ish intelectuals who le^ft their clcss and came over to the working 
class an.d* "fought fcr the interest of the working class ferxisra) 
were welcome, Earaism recognises no tzc±?,1 or national ifiescrlpi- 
nation ana" since many |rews were orominent JIarxian theoreticians, we 
can only- say more power to them/ 'JLlsons 1 argument and "payable" 
understanding of Haras? analogies reflects the kind of argument III tr- 
ier has been- using to fi^it Loral sm — aup the Jeuish people. 

i ISider rthis first false analogy 'ttlson also says, "Ihe count- 
ry— incu atrial England— where KarX has expected 1 to see" the widening 
, gulf "between the owning and the vjoifc ing classes f irst bring about 
a communist revolution^ had turned out to be the country where the 
progressive degradation of the under-privileged classes has sinnly 
had the effect of stunting then and slowly extinguishing their ' 
spirit* ,f 

At least one must give T ftlson£*l£edit for^aeking more erroro 
■ injone sentence than the average middfe^head Earxian "critic". 
First, tlarx did not say that of necessity. England would be the 
first to have the revolution. His writings on the Paris Coismune 
cleanly refutes this, m the Communist Kanifesto he spoke of Ger- 
aany as the next most likely country to proceed in that direction. 
In an introduction to the Manifesto written after the P-ris Conmune 
the authors spoke of Russians the country where an upheval was in 
preparation, rt is true that Uora thoigit the time element would 
not ta*e so long, But so did Sdison think that hia "next" exoerl*.- 
meat woui<3 produce light, but not until a thousand or so ; trials 
616 he succeed. And hictory records that the prediction of Marxism 
more than filfilled itself */i12i the number of social revolutions 
already part of history. Second, according to *ft.-lson 9 Kara expect- 
ed— to see a" widening gulf between the workers and expoitsrs. It 

great mass of mankind with an accumulation of misery, unemployment 
■ starvation and war, Ohis Imperialist setting 1b the fulfillment of 
the ITarxian concept of capitalist development, 3ven the liberal 
on€ Hew Deal apologists will not deny this. Instead they a*iit it 
• ana claim that their "kind" of capitalism will corect it. Let! us 
consider this sentence ones more. If it is true that under-pri- 

ha6 widoneo, Hat capitalism not only stunts eectiqns of the under- 
privileged, Ihe fact tfyat over thirty revolutions took place bet- 
ween 1917 and 1933 clearly attests to the heroic action of the - • 
workers and oppressed masses, that TLlson 1 s smug petty-bourgeois^ 
"Hnrxisa" could never, understand. 




2>a#e 6 



' TH3 SOCIAL -ISVOLUTICaf 



i ^ •;^ e secona false analogy, J'pf -Kara: was his argument iron the 
behavior of ;tha bourgeoisie m t&e 17th,, an'd 12th M centuries to. 
the "behavior to bel expected of the working class, in their turn, in 
relation .to .the", botirgeoi si e , " 




1 



\flhat hi s to rlhjax 'ostrich blindness "tfilson is able to practice I 

He atfcits that ^e rising bourgeoisie! carried their revolutionary 
struggles through J.lflie 17tE\, and 18th., century— and we may add 
tfo& 19tb, century J But ,-Qiei rising proletariat really onlj started 
their Ms tori c mission since 191? { with the Paris Commune aacV the 
1905 Revolutions as dress rehearsals) He wants a coupla vt iZ^cadss 
of proletarian revolutions' W equal a couple of cenu.ri3s of bduj>- 
geoisie revolutions and struggles, in thef seieure and holding of 
pover. 



In many respects the short period of proletarian revolutions 
has already surpassed the bourgeoisie revolutions — m d befbre this 
present imperialist war is over, the proletarian action va.ll make 
history -that will pale into insignificance the bourgeoisie actions 
a*3 the senile and last of the expoiters in the social development 
of mankind* 

TOLiior ^SUBJECTIVITY V5 JJARX OBJECOTTSY 

^ Y JLlson concludes his argument and last article without one 

quotation or one attempt to present or renite even one basic po- 
~ sition of the theoretical system of Marxism, Instead he claims 

I he deals with its ^istovical -origin. Bat in. reality *he -desis" with 

^i| fl n^! 1 JSSjffl£fi!i i 1 ? ^P* 1 iJnpi -ssioiis of what he 




«r«+i*?2*+ ■if 132 ' ra ? n f °? lni °*«- He also admits that it is "the 
nx st attempt in an intensive tfay to stuejr economic motivations 

1 ^ CtXV ^ ly * < Wrfil J *"»» To' study eorooiffloaOTSffB? Fe 
ends up by saying that the dograan of dialectics has no raore en- 
during value than the formula! of any other creed! 

t»* iT,S21?2i : ! ll80n flirted 4 th the radial movement and now with 

giry array of fellow- travelers vfoo have "gone home to ro^st" to 
V:i*\t tneir dirt, to smear, Ha rxism. The revolutionary movement snt 
especially Jhe Marxists movement does not nead this trash. Ire" 
are extra baggage and are a good riddance, The proletariat of the 
5S S^J^i? 8 -! 18 V^V&BS its-ovm party and is developing its 
SE:^ +i^ r 5v ia 2? , ^ nvoln ? numbers— men and women ' v&c stand fLrm 
upon the theoretical structure of Dialectic Materialism,. 

Karch 13, 1941 



A 



^?age 



7# 



.soj-uj.t -<m 




\* 



(&«? 



to -aft,*,.,,!..^ ■ " 5fntur «" et yl«»'P°liti«aljp 03 itt 0n , 3t< . i(is thobort^y 




«. C«sto„ liS'oS^s?l.™ir jK. •*"*»* *j* «■ »»a t ta „ 0Ila;it ". ■ „ 

f; U S B f* tg «»olfiMi bct* eea atnliii« .ST (j!; '"P™*** itself. It makes ft 
the "other totalitarian atatas." ^ <™»iii« and botw* en Co^iL afld 

£-V ■ ... ; '■ ■, £*' 4 ' ««>«vcre by Tmroaralts vithout 



<" 






f 



■ 



, 



1 - 



... .: 







Page 8 



W^^msim^^i^4 



WHO IS | TO ADTH(m j ? 

J 



of othora have W^Ld^d™ 1S\ Sf^° *"*■;** ftotul experience 
the book to nP.ke it a "b«?»li!3 *tJ SS^ 11 ? "*" ■T*»"oo«fc*lo propagandist oditod 

, Thr^ii >1>«*iali«twnr,clnas intuits Pro 



*ioro mro-kcd thwj bofbroITw^LT* *" ™ .^"PwiAiiat wnr,clnas interests pro 
iroM^nil. * ^?;PJopapanda asrtinet the Axis poworo, and above 

w£w "Gainst- tha coning irking class' Pollution. arc SadV 



hilars by a highly e «P.red capitalist distribution mchina! 



* 



and half .truth, kthfllM S™iKff nCfln J l fV 1 " ^o""-. A mass of fn Ct .- 
hoV&vor^W boftrT LltTL XifSXf* JV! ^^"ift, loyalty to thu party, 
inception StSSSam Xcld its i^L™^^ 1 ^ 011 ^ of thd P art *' *™ «■ 

^0 "desire" or Ci«2«»«f+w P ^ f»P ar *t* find apart from tho olaaa/ 
pointod out that ?™!^ * »•* ** 

C0NC3i J T OF JtfSTIGS 

<*-oic f P £™st^ ? orrolato » ^ th th * 

confused youth was Jon S? „T I Sf th ? t ?" orl Einal class counsdous but 
have th, o4l ol t, rs . 3 °^ ™f\™"-"S. and <VT™«W (p.40) If on,, doesn't 

JOINING THE GBSTAPO 



r.c&dxinaa of tha Garnan prose sinoo 1923. " (p. 640) 



_2 









\ 






and naif truths can n^i^^^ , \ ^-^" "" T Tjfl ' i ^^^' ^or: 

class for a new "confoBsiA^L^i ! i? dl f ore<itt Marxian and the working 
docoerats. confoesi/n <md b.rt sell or to new masters, the bour S o6ia. 

fire political defeat? for the elalsa and lL Si A Thi » l8 / al-v ^^ 3trl * es 
where the Strike is defeated for /I J™ 4 ™5"^d. £n exception to the rule 
tils? e^ ker8 dM ^ «■ W«£ 2?Bft^2afr5^»f a.Bituation 



.•- 



jWRXTSHaAHD strikes 



- 



i.-?""SJr' 



s=j psrsfcwl&s .SSiSHSS Warsaw. 

rikers did LEAR* cEils f?SS^l EJSS d4W * ad ;-««W ** <* situation 

theoretical. argume a J f ^mf pre1Intfl^^T?f t?JT * b ° ut ^Uniem in 
■ and uses this against'the ^£^^1^^ ^^ *** WarF * d ^«h?oiab 

ll«d£tta S^SkSi^SS SSH ** "J*™ of Stalinism and the 
*hi-o Terror, '» * lth Ecni ° f « position on Rod Terror against 

fizd 3 0Cialists aot Set 3 the imp ret, ion thi* not only were the Cemmunieta 

h*Z 3 o many confidential cts 9 t '?L '* l^t *** not ****** If 7ttlti * 
e^tart of the revolutW W thUls^ £ Wh £ doos he ** S*™ a true 
%>sson« of 0ctober2 ,deai*ne "rtth Si™ ^h public matorial.such aa Trotskys 

thar the masses were rSfeA&tfa hSSS X-E? Vf ° th ° r "* torlia aho *^ 
who Ttem voted down. -Leaders tabled ovents t exce t the i&rxiets 

«librc of KriTitaky C a^d 5SS, y# ^ iS ° aSy t0 aRko for «* "f thu 

HAJLXXSM A FRAUD f 

. £$£t SKX^T3SX l JSSS - ****** *■ ™ under ■ 

ask hinself if his lifas -oXi;:^*? <=fiPitulata,ha statee that he began to 
understood under such prealuro! "*?%* S^' ^* ST** 1 ™ di *^ San b° 
a falsehood, a fraud, 5 il spook - tnT V^**' *** al1 this «*• 
forgotten fundamontals of £Jxi2 fe„ ^ n ^° i r 3Uld r? COMldw thy hal * > 
greatest living statin f- (or krlJ ?! * A8 S "S"?**' *• is tho 
;-hroo bloody words ieorod at me frn^ to "* r "' **^i Stalin. 1 ' 

"Down with Stalin*" (pjfll) h ° pino boards of *P Cal l-" 

of its fundamentals, of Stalin t L tlL f* - L:y 'P **^ of *rxi 8 m, 

leaves the improsoiin that StaiSiL ^^ r °° nCO ? t 7«?° W ? »ith.atalln r -all this 
^rxism should bo amaehod. Althmirt^^'-S** ** T ^ m and bo ^ Stalin and 
Gestapo prison walla iWaatn^rftln^ bo °V "" W*S» outaido. of the 
bourgeois democracy. In S ™lS ^r ^SS^S ^J? th ° ■**lrt«B^ 
Dock drives the unLy fSLTrftS CWaSSJR - ^^ °' * 

•'•.-V'''. * ■ 1 H ■ '• ' ■-:'•-«»•" 

." v • "-■- •: - " - ■ !-• '-' •• • . ■-•• ' , - "* '' * • 



. ■ 















£&$" 




- y orin?n by tlio reader £v- ™ r . t ' hat the ; design j- ?: - ^••^ iolr - : ProioiitB +■>.« 



::'v 

■. 
'-, 

h 



■-. 




fi- 



A 

! 

i. 



• 



V 



- 
1 . 



J 



I " 



./•'-'" ;!. 






■ . ' ; ,; , ■" ': ■: ■' . ... 

-■ : ' : ...V \ - -.-..',.-: ■-,■' 




i ' 



■ 
i 



- ' - ' . .: *M: V 





-//- 




AND 



BC ^EOlS P R( | FFSSGK 

struggle Boved :l to y the e l^*+ he ^ <3, J? the .*Hgree that the cla^s 

SElSV* ? el ^^le f ^ tTt!g' u |^ st ?' PwftSroM^a 
wplaimng Marxism. toe f ■ Srt«?S*S hGr3a ^> to write books 

52? li" a ."retain professor in New 52S?%£ "SP*-" °* these perf 
teo as ^ dlaLectle ffle & g £■«£ ^ LE| . T h| ^ 

aeL^* fl S^^°StrtlR? ?^ Si***— uses, sta- 
eontemporary too-,. into fbsJl^e L?? "? stit «tton a l monarchy in^ 
He does not say 'with the win ~% f? lf ~' 3eteimi >ation of the will 
-non' tut 'the'finil de^isi^n „% S LJ5? ™>narch l ies ^ fSL dec<- 
?X?2°? zti 5 n i s empirical; ? &g S?^ 1 ^"' *•»<»«<*■. » ShTfij.ft 
mto a metaphysical axiom, "(i)? Mnd tranforms the erapiri cal fact 

^^^ffi^^^^^* a ^t^irtoal«;our ' 

empirical and* SSsShySSl"^ *Zl% s l ae Terence between the 

ih 2?* ° pp ^ n e aefihiUo7 s a &S! *JV 0li 3 cs ^ best revealed 

The way 7'r-rx uqp^ +>io + 
•£?&£ Vc?? to *ff '*rd iraiSnt al 'r- ?nd ^ Maten * *» 

ssrasys: s?£ffiffS&aa asarsS?- • 

K ^ CU1 — c^aiectie materiel- 
g ^Sf^LV^^^^f- -niricai abroach ?nd " 



i % 



,■•■ 



Page 12 



i 
A mDWSSTAL SOCIAL AtfTAGOSIS* 

the whole, social oncese who^l Serf^??^ 3 w ae L g">w out' of 
ttonships «hl C h those who coni^e ™«*= a *!° *S • u * bt in the rela- 
production and distributing ^1? ^L^* 1 * to thosa who "control 
errs on. one of the most iX«i+iwi ■ * is <J«stion our xsrofessor 
taffs of Marxism, it", no? ^ n ?L as 3? cts ° f the economic teach? 
GOODS to those who cmtoSl ^*,n^ atlon ? llp 6f those wh ° CCTSUL3 
the basis for thTcla^t?~S£ s ° n &i attribution that l^T 
tween>C6oclaliaect ^roduction^'^f^v 1 ?., 13 * e c ° n tradtction oe- 
who only have labor^f sell^d S^l ap ? I ' ? l4ati <> n > those 
relation to the owners of tsfll. 7 gooas (ooranodities) in 
<nuld.be writte^bo^ ^^^4??'™?**°"; J whole ^ e «*'* 
only present the &n<Jan«ntalrHff^iL-* v°2 e potation; but we 
the Professor and IferTaSd w-VST^ ' een the Portion of 

v '^lE SOOTS OF THE STATS • ' . 

"*br oS^he^S^Ias'aV^de'^^t 1 ^' 8 '^ 6 *»*•■* W, ' 



the state tg rooted in 

feasor 
arji sua, 
professor 



-The Blase eivf sionT of^eS^ ^^ ^^0? 
saya the ste/te ilrooted L ^f^fv^ 6 *! wMch the ? r - 
Roots which (In tur£ are rl»' *.^i y + tJ,, - liI gwwth of *• r °°ts, 
the moat i4»tffl,r,»Et of%be |u£r ft™.^ *?**; **' st * te * 
the system of lexoloitption o?> »™ P w stluc ^ e has its roots in 
of proflBOttdb. pJSb these rLlt i&J*?' " n ?" capitalist node 
tagonlsms, t£e ^tate, etc? ° W ^^ Visions, <**«> an- 

the i 929 Ma has i&s_g t *v«^ sat asst** 

philosophy ajtd Huiacnc raEXCALI3 , 

class soc*^ ^TS» P^letarL?^ 1O30phy G» a ?"*»«* <»* a 
mil carry through the SbS|S«SS S^? 1 £ **'<*«"" «& 

not present in the real 4nse T^m?? * a cl£e * ie ss soclatr- d-v-s 
anat ounterposesto all rihilnL^= os *? hy * In stead the pnict- 
Katwialian. In :? cll«,I« « ^i e \3" e teaching of iKclW., 
philosophy, instead ttere^n^p^^r 6 ?ln *- Wer * ■ 
now Hate, un , er theTep ^^rg^s^L^. 6 ^ «"*- 

in'tte?tarSn Sk.^"^"** 1 » «sed the. tern,, philosophy 

means dialectic material^ ?* £&%££■ ^^? e <^ ls ** 

i ,-»"?rerore, Marxists ODunter;x)se the 



/ 



.Page 13 




ialis^fs" ^^Zl^^LfT™ 0f di * le <^ •»*!- 
society. Tomorrow whin olas^fnA ffiiSL. 1 " ?"*" «» ends of 
dialectic- materially will 8 , 8 - 8 n 2 ifflFE- •*?"*» ^science of 
nature, instead oAan ag si:,st mf S0CLal **»"of nan against 

°*>^^^^%£t^'^*?^ «*-.* phil- 
concept and sneaks of the K fra i s °n «m . v ^ others reject this 
philosophies," an^ P le«^hiloS^v P « V 50 ^' '£ ° n - of to2 ■«» 
us- consider a few ouot-t?™~ °S ? 5 y on *°? ™ *e main espect. Let 
^ the' questlonof^iospphy^^ reV< ^ la thie ^visionilt position 

^ProTOv^^gt^^^^^in^tinto the ^t, it 
^f 8 ' (P?e.aking of the -SoietA-i»? ?JS r V ," In ' attempting io do 

finds in the nrSlet.-riet it«"™«?^T=? toal wep ?° n s and philosophy . 
| . ■« "ei its material weapons."- (5) 

think 5*£lL~^r a ?tt. U ^£V elaiitt,rt 8bove socle ^ and 
leadership hot thil bour^lnf* ^f tXVe v Corjt! 2 n ''' e?lth through his 
ohilosoohy' a bove sooi-S wh- ? oh 3R ^Z £t t» ? ts to establish 

■ oeajxm. The whole wnclVt ji * V&£j? 2 e 2 1 * *?*ii« class as its 
the oroletarirt finds SPIhilnLsS^! °? ^? as crJd felae - He says 
the contrary, the "roletP-i- S?^ J? ^tellectual weapons, 0r7 
the science o*™ e £«tl^St^?:?5L l1 t i 3 ^* * 081 «wpoa« in 
relation only through And^thecfL^L? 18 ,- 01683 «"1*M at this 
ation between the vlnguard tn-^s^f J^F 18 , f na ■ P™?* ?el- 
this position of struSie Vtb'iS^*^. 1 ^ -P 1 ^ 8 - ^ 51Tive "•* 
guard mist «*rry on ? -elen^,! ^i?££ ,ctu f 1 2'^ M »i «ie van- 
0*5 professor Xys the nhUolo"^^^ L^i^'^ **■¥>&*' 

■ material we.^on. "his islii-H^ii the vroletrriat its 

*■%« F ? rly, whi* presents thftteo™- /^ ** Evolutionary 
in ACTIor does pot find in th P ^ n ^ 01 ? 2 f -[-' lectic W tarie liei 
rne party only «^&e«t^ v f^*$«S* «? n. teria v,™,. . 
etrrxat. The Uarxlcn r-y, to o-i«ln? +v?! c 5? n l, B ' ;rrt o:f *e ^i.. 
th*t the theory of d<.-±ec%iS £?~?i, J^", M i** iOT: «*iP is to strte 
for the vforlcinLclasi t- ™, ^ i?lisn f s the ajI ^ TO iCXIOP 
fele. ;rel c tiorfh" S ?nd i^l^ehSE*^; 8 ?' ,»• wchaicSl and 
philosophy anr not dialectic reterirtts,?* *™*** presents is 

^•'^Ite^Ua ^ s ^°^?i fl S conc6 ? t ae v*rofe s ,,or continue 
fcm of trrdition^'-,ni 1 oso"hv U o« «5*^' "" 8 rt0t *«*"*a ce T * 
bach, he believes •2ttS»^?SSfft& 1 fe ^fT 



J, 











SS^^^il^|^& *«m*ssor seen, 
our criticism? ir . This iV V1 ^ + ?S?°r?- »^f v *? too-h-i<»ty , in 
spepk.of-Har.xfs belief? Ms fegSS'K&E? ?? the *»« »<rer. To 
iticwal Bhilos-ohv ±, ™«,£^JT* ^L^tar^Jaan, a 'te:, vs. tr»<j- 




metaphysics. \pain ti»ii^V t *7"~" i"i' ""«*« <*-onai pnixosoohy 01 

tip lM.teriialiwj. i£e sv^ten, f/^H?f^ hy v ' hen -»«*fc« *"* <^alec- 
h ? * fli'fferent form in Z^-L^^-^^ 1 ^^' " ls *">•• 
mustlsneak of oOiTEKT- * * l*****!**! but :>bove til one 




■ 






: 






*eei&lM%SlSSi*J' 2£?j£f ^^eionists, desii-ea to continue 
fat B%*?tt^ i? sAool, 

LOGIC 



:. '1 



■ 






y ■ 

- 



-. 



■. 



. more ^%£ T V^?ZZ™:*% T J!**""! " hich "»* « 
"Dialectics ac the Lo^e of Uteli£ \ v ^n" 86 of ^ tor,n ' io S^ < 
'"Rie logic of development « i, »^^J M X X ' ».«■•**« a subhead, 
principles of KaS egress 4?»!??i5 e ?v <M r ,e ^ ,s * "»■ «nl»otl<*i 
sciousness .->nd dow^ctloii^ Si £~~ 1 SF° of ^^rical eon- 
the use of the te^ "loSc ' butW^ttS^S thpt l * is not only 
lectical ?rinci-,le P *»Sskp^'4»fv £f ?Z?S% S ™ T ***.&** dia- 
scioueness anr! ci's« =c*in^ Th2^ ** L0CIC of historical con- 
so ..-a will brush bS^ first the one ^^'S ia P- ! " t ^t errors here, 
question of loeic. tbr-t a ° es not deal v;itii the 

I . . 

histor^'lfconsciou'^^^ 

lectic^atertrlisn ^e fte ^i%e to a Ctt °on ft^^ 1 ^ 1 * 3 °- f ■ dla ' 
. vanguard, and this u-iterial fn?« rw . S • t he c>ss jno its 
development (not lo^c) of h °? 5 r-^ ^L^ 11 ^ 5 ' "»«•■■*■ the 
Here the irofes-or tonuses i S-^ 3?*, c °Pf c -°usness and class action. 
?rn«ess. - ^niasea i'-e.-s with the naterial dialectic 

above. dioTefScs? p^T^s&^J?,*"*?^ P 1 * " *&* 

the logi.c of this or tSt, the quenionlf^ 3F*£P e * pres * 
■ ■ • ' qJe "\ or! of dialectics Is' therefore 






K, 



- 



;■ 



"\ 



si 



• . 



. \ 




. :?5g£,--i-5 



resolved' on; a -cutely : fal^ a ;:i S . tegicCis the oppo'site.of t 







'£■■" -V. -L, ^' ■ ; -• ■£■ ~" ^."jp."-' u^+^c. wie opposite : ox'i 

H^*'L^ 3T ?4 "^ ^alectical materialism a£ 



a eyetesa i:i clv.de **«£& Mb _ 

Xogi c ou t >f the FRAI3 ,DBK OF frlALP 1 P#r'TT i Tri-^f ^ST* £££ M * 



• 



£ 



■ 



THE EASTS /OF ,DlAkEC 3€ MAaEIUULIStf 
speaks of Scientific Ks+fl^^t™ -Jaxerlalisa, Wheft one r 

riat. ha^ its £aa?« 1% ,'„ A. a gl ? I ? e to action fo¥ the proleta- 

knowledge is a reflection of f£ DIUSCK^pfel aB &ES ° f ,w 
what, can one expect from « n.tti, hi,",t^„ f r.BXiSS OR JTAIU33. But 

knows ie SS ttoui a^aMffcasstea soA oae *• 



\ 



2HI0D AITL sypiSM 



w !S„ Eege1 ' £H method ls ^ e ^ivei3 from the system — 
- ie system - or whatever there in n-p-'rvri* -tCZZ Zi m h \ 



;<■.• 



fto 



arx, 
Karx r s 



I 



££K*k*S £**& *? A' 



leaves 



concept, vhich has notM™^- 3 J V pure and sinnle ia 

Karx turned Keg e l? s concept ri^aT^ ^ rX e P° siti ™. ""^V 

has turned He K flt fi -JSS2S -^Sl fide, up in content, our srcleW 

concept of me^od*ana 7.M iWe^t^V ^oposee :i2U 
sent the professor's iae^llat positt.n ri? 1 ' but he - ^ cot »** 
Btion frow two an^aa -i2 * v , ' L * t us consider tjis qk«-\ 

tic -Ifcttoa. Let 5* «nSfliS ^c system is derived from the dijjiflc* 
Are we spaaUi^ of the svetL of ?£l C * Pt Jt 8 * 3 ^ ** ■ - ■* «*«« 
the otjective oondltion «JTo~ condition under Aaervption - 

system ofalaiecttcf th| .&5™ J* -JS^S «£, ' ff»*g * J«a tf* 

, w« wieoreticai structure? -Hie theoretical 



Page 16 -.'";. 

f.ialectic system is only a reflection of objective reality, that 
'whl^h is outside "of. md "indepenGsnrt'.'of man* .:-.In> reality! .these tiro 
- dor.c'ep cs of the; term' ttystem 13 ttyoVsifies of .one quest!- on, Hegel r s 
■pusimon and tne professor* g position ere toth -ferong, considering 

the terra system from bo"£h. aspects* 

' Th e correct way to present the question of the relation of 
method to system is as follovs: First we must take inte considera- 
tionjthe objective conditions under observation, a system of birth, 
growth and decay in space-* time. Upon this objective condition.' we 
apply, the METHOD cf dialectic materialism and thereby unearth the 
OBJECTIVE: SYS TSK . under cantd Hp-pa-H a«. on* «■*«,«** +/ita«i*;n the 



- 



THEORETIC 



; SYSTEM under consideration, and proceed to develop 
AD SYS T~&L of dialectic materia l£sn« This concent o 



of the 



re.Lation.pf the o elective condition to the investigator, and the dy- 
namics of the system of dialectic materialian has nothing in common 
with: the professors mechanical schema ■ 

j ' !IE3 DIAISCTTC ISOHOD 

I "One least significant aspect of the dialectic meniod is its 
division into triadic phases'*, "It is not so ouch the number of 
phases, a situation has which- makes it' dialectical but the specific 
relaftion of opposition between those phases T*hich generates a sue-' 
cession of other phases." (10> 

Tnis quotation reveals a complete lack ^f understanding of 
ialectis method, of dLa]*"^- 1 ■•■ — ■-■>■*- 

the specific rela 
vision into triad 
•ocess is HOT IE 
. speak of opoositiu 

t+ ?* ™+ +i- i^ 18 *° add another error to Hie above er^-or 

uiroujm tne najp phases- of birth* growth 33d decay. 



a% leasf IXte? dilSn^rJfe^* ^ ***«tc situation is ! 
professor Lf m&S s £ £ \^V^ separate." ^rther on the 
^eoSectlve conaUUons^^? *5? movement of opposition are 

ate c^scSusnerslSnei rf^stl^f «^iS^ n *^ °* "" 
Gire» (antithesis) ./Kich proie£tI neVib^rtL ^^^an^neerigand re- 
pose objective condi tinnK «i +2 ^ff^-^ties on the basis if 

class, ^ C^^SST^SS^^f th ° ll ^ t ° f a ™** 

P*ases^d?in^ r 4^-ct of the diaaectt, 

presents them as a ideaUet ^ ' P ^ S aS a materialist, 



1 - 

2"'- 
3- 



. He- presents -the \ three bh? sen 'ss: ; 
The si s --■ o'bpo si ti on i*i thin ? the 1 x>b$ e cii ve\ co nditi on , 
;\ntithesis -- human needs and desires* 

Syndesis— by the r will ?nd thoupht of?; definite cl*ss,V 
class action results. 



7e must* first eounterpose -,'to' this 'idealist presentrtion .-rid 



limited understanding of the dialectic FIDGSj th&Karxissi positiav 

First\let us .consider 



*teke the 

conBuer— 



which merely re'flects the". obj£ct£« reality . 
the dialectic process as •» whole in l£fcUBt!2ft7, Let us 
C"pit,-list system. O^esis eoi-ls the birth, of o ^it^icra, 
cial capitalism; antitfte '4s equals the deye-loxient o£ croit.lism, 
industrial crpit->lism; synthe?is equals the d~ic-y of &--Sitalism, 
finance =c--->it 1 ~»nd the proletarian revolution which clvnja.i the 
mode of production. The birth st-ge of any condition considered 
is jplvrays a x*el | ?tion of s aew birth in relation to the eject- y of the 
'.old*- In reality it is ? st. r ge of dec-»y (of one) ?nd birth (of 
another condition). Or consider the cycle of— ^ primitive -connuni^ra, 
civilization with its systems of exploitation,. : .nd scientific .-com- 
munism; each of these major st? ges which include sub-strgeL Or 
take, the triad cycle of the Production of capital, the three, forms 
presented 1 by I>rx in his wor^ on Orpital. These above exsnnles 
deal with three phases of e. condition in development in time \-ith 
each stage (or phase) of birth, growth and de cry ,.ore sent in£ Sts 
ov.*n intern Icfcrn amies of contradictory forces (or chases). Shis 
presents two different aspects of the tern ihase in the dialectic 
process. 









hovi let us consider the concept of antagonism, not in develV 
°? T ? e ? w j *»**» ■ the present at the point of transformation 6r change, 
Kr*J? ncture and society is the revolutionary r»hase or condition, 
Sie struggle between- the capitalist end the Proletariat represent 
the thesis and the antithesis, and the new do si tion gained" out of. 
taat given battle or revolution represents the svntheeie. Vt all 
times, in considering the question of thesis,' antithesis and syn- 
thesis, either inlrelation to the oresent, as "contradictory factors 
or in relation to 'development of . the contradictory factors" -&B se 
triad factors must be UAXJRIfiL CDEDIIIOffS and represent objective 
reality, aanan needs and desires* which Hie Professor sneaks of 
as one of the phases is only a IGFL3CTI0 ? of one of the objective 
conditions. " 



.-: 



\ 






One cannot understand the relatii 



-on of or>t>o sites (which is 
primary) unless he also understands the dialectic development 
oppo sites through, the triad 
me human needs and 



of 



!?Vges of birth, growth and "dscay* 
desires, 4 nd wi 11, through cla^s action remould 
dixect and reshape these objective condition 3 tc -Hie "workin^-cla^ 
ends and tfor social development. 



P 



- ( 



.. 



t 



- i 



- 1 



logic-' AOAH: L 



J 



- Speaking of "jhe Logic of .I/tees/ 1 ", the; orofessor state ?^ . j :Fbr 
Jvarxth.e' conten^ of knowledge Coin nove- be 'boxad vithin aiy closed 
system, logic Itself, 3.-= a 'study of the , orde r of things, can never 
be, a 1 final closed system. "(1:2) The tfi^iectic u. teri li-ti rre-not 
concerned* ps*iri "t±% idth the logic of development or the oijaer of 
things, ^larxLs-pG are concerned v/ith the DIALECTIC of ! deveio jmefnt 
and the development of things. It is not the logic of* idea"" that 
Harx was conceive d. vith as a materia lir.t ,but the dialectic* of ide; 
as:; well assail of co nations rndpelationsi Agrin the .-*rofesflb^ 
has replaced dialectic n~tarialisin with the -system of Logics. 

Ttt II1UT Ctf 2H3 T>I.UiECTxC ' I 1 

"From the reciprocal influence and the interaction betr.^een 
i€eal aii'ti the actual a ne*? subject matter is -»roduced outiof v/huch 



it will change. 



Thir ic iiie heart of the diaiectic. l, Cl3) 



.If mis ip the heert of tie dialectic then llarx r.nn'j-^els 
merely presented some idea lir tic rubbish and mother ^hilo^ohy 
.mp.te.-rs of the science of dialectic mater is li m . Dut thinks to 
reality and Mrrx and 3ngels thin. is not the esse. The he^t of 
\^the dialectic, that is ,of dialectic oaterialifB) ha* Doming to do 
with the process of the actual and the ideal. '.This is feb Ml- 
osonhers nno the mind of the humnn. The dialectic ^roce^s is not 
a relation between the actual and man's i-'eal like the ChriotLan 
religion, althop^i it in given the -nene of "rtla^eetic" philosophy. 

The dialectic contradition and antagdniqns of any process 
or ry^ten -*e* presents' en OBjUCFITG condition of f/o or no^e con.tr-- 
adic^ry factory The ide^lof "pen U«f or nay not be a reflection 
'■■•.,? direction of develoment that social conditions can be 

^2^^ 3 c 1! ^ fe K^ e f^ ra y , S ae ? ire ' etc *>*-^ tholine of the 
/ ^T^ 11 ? ai *y a * m objective factor C^arty sgad class) guide -hd 
;.•>> influence one or more of the antagonistic farcer of objective 
reality toward its goal, 'J3ie -irofarsor nresentf not even "£ood" 
mechanical materialism, instead he >ra^n+.c «*»« y^A m^^^ZT 



, instead he >resentq very bad dials c 
idealism, rat 

\ 



1 , th^g 13 m Di.iLrxTics o? kjbjcs 



i 



^ '■tfPOi'.'Bie foreroinn i-tar-retrtLpn, tlv, ,-ttanit to ar-ly 
thefiPlec^io to Tip-hare nupt fcf ruled out as inco'mstible \£M 

^SoSrttt^rfSSg^ 1 ? KjxMwA*.bw» speaks of 

;i;:zll+ -•*• ^fiS i although he tie. quite avere th?t the praaial 

^Sf'S^*? Wanentrl units of ^SLafdU- 
cMfri&S^af^ 6 ' *5i2Sp">. «"* L, 1 ! S»t ouantit- tive 

«p of the ^a^g^aiftiVA 




.*■:. 



. 



. 'JafTp 



k'.iv. .... ■.■•"!"■ - •■ 



. to' really tear frori under i2thi «w2i*?3 lo 5 ? f: Bature in order ' 

sioniet position of dialect?^ iJ2vJ£! f^ P 1 * 8 ™* MsIotid revl- 
soeial devIlo^ent^nnHlts SnectT^in^^Sf nt > Ut in 
can also P 6r- n f out hundreas of dlalecti" eL^f^ 8 -^*"' °*» 
organic de^lolroent. flithin each MtarfarS^«^£ rAC ?" d 
organic, bo dpi development or P " its reflect ^i^?^ SSW* 
man the forms differ, from t£« rfJ^if ; er ?f St'- ' 1 *£ the raind of 

damental mApm'&gg |£ SrS^SSi^ 1 ****, ^ j 

'. • r' 



DiAL3c.o:c |&'jaa&xa< 



r 



DLalactie materie>lisn is. first +*««. -^ . - .» 

second, as a reflection of this ££«!« ?/T 0C ?? s °* »w*up«» and 
hod of 'investiprtion, or ttae^cifnti^^t^i? ^ e , sol f*ittc mt- 
is the DlAI^C'x'ICS Of'kawto? »nd -??"£. )5 ao r y of *nowl«flp».- . It 
ISCTIC ilAK.tL.iLm-. rt la the ti S e a tf "!, t0 actlo 5» " la DIA* 
for the f class struggle and for fM,,«°. + £ Ctio V or ^•Proletariat 
Marxism iV the a^ficstion of ?nZfr££% ^w of capitalism. 
; political ec OT o^and\Ccl*/s la trSSle? ^^ ln *•**•«■ of 

^'^i^^ r tati r « 

November 1937 



'A 



1 • 



\ 



» n 



} 






j 



I 









i V.|<. 






PageUp, 



• <. 



GfTtfew CONFESSED 

: . - ■ : r I ( l - ■■. - 

■ - ' j V I 

Benjamin Qttlowrhas written a book♦"±.eonfess , •• Sfcroughout 
the 597 rambling oages It is difficult to co tannine whatjfer, Gitlow 
is confessing' unless it be, his political ignorance. 

The period of revolutionary defeats has witnessed the develop- 
ment of many Ben Sitlows, men who have given long 'service to the 
cause of the proletariat but who, because they never understood the 
basic principles of Llarxism j because they came to Communism more 
from, the emotional or idealistic strain tf ther than a clear percep- 
tion of revolutionary principle are thus easily torn asunder" by the 
first impacts of defeat. 



Ve recall the case in our own organization of Joseph ^eck. 
Always fan active, trade unionist he never understood the relation- 
ship of the union to the proletarian revolution. j 3fee trade union 
was the alpha end. omega of Harxian to him. He Insisted on revolu- 
tionary trade unions so ardently that he ended by becoming * a finger* 
man for H^rtin Dies and Homer Ilartin, 

We recall tiie case of the -Spanish" syndicalists, who fought so 
ssnguirtely against ALL states without under s ten ding the class be sis 
of the state, that they ended up in the bridal suite of the Spanish 
BOTJHGEOI& state , as ranlcing members of a bourgjeoi'G cabinet betraying 
the Spp.nieh revolution, 

Renegacy from Itarxism hgs its roots in the failure to under- 
stand it. Eenjamin Gitiov si ows now, what he always indicated while 
in the revolutionary movement, a complete lack of understanding 
of scientific Communism, 1 

'/hat pre the substances of .Gitlow* s charges? Principally that 
the Communist movement (he lumps Stalinism, Trotskyism and Marxisn 
in one pot) l=«cks MOJULPiT. But nowhere in the book does' Gitlow 
even touch on the basic factors in morality, that morali"fr is only 
a reflection of the social relations of a given period, thp.t what 
is "noral" at one point in history is !, immoral rl at ahbthe'r point; 
that what is' "moral for one classofoeople is "immoral" \tiien~used by 
another "class or even the minority section of the ruling class it- 
self. For instance it is "immoral" to kill or to rob-, but it is 
nox immoral according" to Ir# Roosevelt to murder Germans in the 
great struggle for democracy" or to make away with the colonial 
booty of the world. Morality is -not a vague abstraction devoid of 
, class content: it has not only a definite el ask meaning but FUHPOaS. 
Modem morality aims at the continued exploitation end robbery of 
■«:& proletariat and i the- protection of the wealth of the bourgeoisie, 
raueto injure private roroperty even if that property as coital 
degrades human life j causes misery amongst the exploited and is the 
root of hunger t misery /and war, - to do that is "immoral 11 • To rob a 

"■■'■-- £*-;\k 



B 



- j 

1 . 



- I 



..person of his wallet is ■•immoral" 



Page 31 



- i 



f* w ' °* ms Wfiie i is "immoivl" , but to charge exorbitant ^rice R 
^swindle on the sa.cr market, eici is air c of sidered ^oVS si -* 



• • ■ 

But to IS*, Gitlow ail this is /rreek. lis "beoinfi vtith Piat^n^n 
^•concepts of morality morrlity in tf£ SitretvS? h? efiup^. 
; just : aQ pne might ^suspect. ..... defending BQuTifeoiS I-OHILIHY. 

c^k^!^ treafl: Jbourgeois democracy) is something more than a 
•?Vv?i ^ " c ^^ot ligiMy surrender this dearly- won heritage. 

™™ * ™ ocr ^cyiD .taerica, precious for all its imoerfectionfl 

Ta^Ur ^UMr * ^ f0Ught * ^-estab^ishlT^iiff ■ 

t:i ** Gitlov; defends the history book "democracy", the PAP3R 
rights of man written into the bourgeois constitutions. But he 
rails to explain - in fact he never understood - that these "rights" 
were won by the working class in violent and sometimes revolution- 
a TL+°!3 $£ rH? •«• Precisely bourgeois democracy. He fails to 
?l™. ^ S? 1 P 16 debtors 1 jails were eliminate* in the early 
ispO s by the struggle of the proletariat against ... democracy, 
bourgeois democracy; that^strikes, picketing, freedom of speech 
?n * assembly (even in their limited forms) were all won in 
^f^^i^zt Aaui:ST bourgeois democracy, and have ever been main- 
tained by ihe never- ceasing pressure of the proletariat on the 
nf* ^f^*** pf ^perfections" (?) that tfr, Gitlow speaks 
oi,/idiout understating, happen to be the restrictions on the 
orders mfhts by Bourgeois Democracy whenever and wherever the 
proletariat is not strong enough to gain these rights, 

I*e- £*3L^t*JhS JEf^r 1 ? . c ^ ges <atlow mV * 5 against Communism? 
E2 JltiJfl v*th tiie Stalinist revisions of Marxism of tne'-Ototdtar- 
+™.« +£ 2? s as h i s . n?1 n point? Does he show the relationship be- 

rSirSlifv? ^^S^ 80 ^; 11 " ±Yi 0Tie ^^try" and present Sta'linist 
morality? lo, the thought never even dawned on Gitlow, 



Charge number, one (in the order 
political importance) 1 is that the 
sons tunes very cowardly; 



they are made, not in their 



. seems that Jay Lovestone turned State' tri.d thue 



another 

the brunt 



men in the Communist movement 
they were schemers, ambitious, etc. 
_med State's evidence' and thus fram 
■«de to a prison tern; that Suthenberg made Gitlow * take 
n 9 in »««v a . ? i n - teilB ^? y adQi tting in court that Gitlow waa 
S? + na £ n T^-a-auck m publication of a revolutionary saper; 
;;:,J r t^;J" S i e n WPS ? eve £ anything, but an American 3ryan who 
SH L ^1 s ^° oe p> T3nui, - 1 ffl> tat only wantad to use the movement for 
tuAj-vat -• ?3?L a J« 8 i vl Bt l I ar, ? 3r - Cannon war, only a mmouvering 
E?' etc Xng t0 w ke s aeel v/lth th © devil and his grandson* 




- 




— .._ 






I* 



Page 22 



/ 



crscy are plagues that can not be eliminted overnight but only'- curare 
tf^i ?J?J+.$ ver "JM* 1 *?* and wel.Ve dieted membership and an ac- 
tive, educated working cTLassJ to check it. ../ithin this background 
it is sickle, to understand the American ComMinist Party, During 
Lenin's or.rae it vrca an indecisive link in tlie iforld'chain and was 
mven scant attention. After 1933 the sane world cruses which laid 
the objective basis for Stalinism also laid the objective basis for 
opportunism, burocracy and petty- bourgeois cliouism within the Am- 
erican Party's ranks. But how about the opposite side of the pic- 
ture, the trenfendous sacrifices of Billions 'of Cocmuriist workers 
and leaders throughout the world, the death end martyrcfcm of thou- 
sands,' the sterling devotion of the unknown Lenins, Trotskys, John 
Reeds, Sakovskys, and thousands of others? All this Gitlow is 
silent about. He st6r!cs of Ruthenberg 1 s vanity, of Foster 1 s high- 
handedness, etc. etc. lie speaks like a nan who hnd his nose so 
close to the pindstone he can not distinguish between a mountain 
and a molehill, Hach error in principle is made to appear as if it 
were on^yi part of t2ie frailty of the individual, Huthenberg or Pep* 
per or whbn have you. But - aVi £ here is the- rub - each tactical 
S^ 1 * ?" 1, ffi.?'? W8 iI ? ut oT ^ principled revision of Marxism and which 
JSiCSfiiSPil f. s "inEioral" - (at low ascribes to the ftuiteaental - 
principles of Marxism itself ..not to the opportunist faction of the 
individuals invoiced* A truly bewoldering" state of affairs. 

^instance the dual unionism moves by the CiP. in the !Prade 
Union unity League and the various shyster tactics of capturing 
the unions are ascribed to the vicissitufles - so called - of'Com- 
munism". The facts that Marxists have always been opposed to 

revolutionary" trade unions, as against unions with i class strug- 
gle policy, that the Stalin shift to this line was the result of Ms 
third period policy - this 1 is not indicated. If Gitlow ."confessed" 
that this Stalinist nolict was false and 0PF0S3D to Kafcxism "that 
would be one thing. But Kr* Gitlow' s confessions deal only with 
puny amalgams between Stalinism and Marxian, He identifies what 
in life\itself are really contracts. 

„„!*« whole book teems with anecdotes about H*DIVinj_4LS and what 
Gitlow considers their frailties. But he conmlete subordinates the 
important political fLghts of the time of *lcb he writes: the 
struggle oyer a Labor Party,- to support or not to support one; 
the struggle over whether to, come out of illegality or to remain 
??^ii e 52i< p 5 rty iv the ^ es ^°n of e "fight on two fronts" during 
«?i, i p r < od ? ; ™e question of work in reactionary trade unions 
?£ ™ unioiism; the basic and fundamental question of socialism 
+?«S V c 2 u 3P ry or i ntern a"tionalist extension of the October Revolu- 

Inese thin^ft^Vf Pfti*? 8 ?? r , e t vol ^ ion i ** »"V »eny others. 
ST f £"?? ^ I ^•Gitlow the Iloralist are uninrnortont. In many 
senses Gitlow is like our good, bu Vharaless, friend George Marlen, 

consfders^ vlo aSo c^ 

of. Stalin and c^anyf Stalimm spring from the "bad" traits 

a- vanity an, j^&S SfS ^^^2 ^Sf 



C"S- 




^WF* 



^.r^^m^^^^m .■:-*-- 






V- 



'.■ . 



■rage 23 

'■• - ■ '\ - 

We doubt if it ever Mil.' But u^ rn+'V&L '* i -V :: ^ 

i? specific material concations tliich laic the he sis for the 
dories of cual unionism, or of the labor -oarty - the ^o^er.fty 

So"S?S°' ?n ^5 y S , *?Sh Glt ^*'^ '* S ^ p in ^rtimr telj wolves' 
+ „^"f g : • lyl TT^ iCh ' °? course, is sheer nonsense. The "golden- 
twenties" in the U.S. specifier lly frvored petty bourgeois intel- 
lectuals like Lovestone,and Jtuthenberg. The situation on a world 

S^l£i,. t ^J[ oz ! n V ? eefe ^ s .° f the wolatariat even strengthened 
fbrther wch people, me:cing:it th at much more difficult fo? Marxian 
element. =\ to assert themselves, it i s not a question-of human 
frrilties; it is a question of objective reality sn? its effect 
^ on Politics. j 

Charge number two in thet the Ame; ic n Party is completely 

dominated ty Koscow, .^ain Gitlov; reveals Ma capitulation ,to 
to bourgeois ideology. Te conlnes his "analysis" to/ the su^er-* 
ricial limits of ell bourgeois haeics who babbie in l£bor history. 
Outside of loyalty to one or another nation?! bourgeois ^over, 

^JLSSL*? m * lT1 ^ J»J-"» ^ e concept of international class " 
*£ lia fJ£ft -* reduced to this. So runs the lie. And the concept 
Z+J^+?rZ l X Tty °\?* working- class, ;jHh a democrat! c centralist 
™2Xf™ > V '5°? e K^S" m>* leadership are controlled by the 
H^S! *' ™ meyitchly in life, result in the burocratic caricature 
t-ffsieg is flu Jtoencsn "Coonunist" Party. So Bgys Gitlo'ir, In fail- 
ing to give the dialectic of the development of the Comintern. 

Under Lenin dozens of factions existed in all nrrties in tba 

itel2?*i-,®?S ^B e 22Si* a truly Bol3hev ^ ftcUqn was in the 
Ie^tf c ^J^°Sf? centrist or ultr-left, or even reformist 
Tmnfnr-rlTTv efy v :rhe '-E^ts of these factions were waged 

iS^ ™^ 2 ™ rtoe ° f y«5»i w«i international fractions 

inhl^B e + £±^F r + fi S e * ^ n£4ln ■ /orks of e11 the Actions were 
2tH? throughout thaiworld. It is necessary merely to recall 

igaaiisSli'B materia in opposition to Lenin were published 
: he^iB fi5Si%5* ^ e oillione of co ^ e ^ efter the F^V discovered 
re^ll ^ t^f*^ 3 * ?« ^^y. It is neefssary to 

lays oVthe SSSti?!^? ^^V** 16 * itt - toericf '^ ^ e ««* 
ai?K««^ SS L01tt ^tern none of which vie re <-bminrted bv 'Moscow.' 1 

0LI7HIC ooirt^of th£™?v ^2~ t ?F , l 9na , the tE cKAIuCaL .4PD K4T- 
• of the ComintemT ?T^f7? f r ® ths result^of the degeneration 

■**•** i.'liy * <tf-™33B3 elsno^t^A.'i^ir: Hi^e, hot* 







, •' '.•/'■• /'"Page 24 



is 



■• 



i you eve aware ofto,toS!'L to ' COme ' **• Gitl °-'. certainly! 

to rawer in Qftpmanv or lira, n,™.. i s-^aTUC - to bringlezisn 

{ • tribtited heeSS ^v&l^T^JZ? 1 * "5 d the "^fi" 1 crowd ^con- 
nothinp rpvvnp. 7i ~+ 3*? „ °* h °°liran equads. Ve confess ve see 
of tteVf ?*,«* ^^irS *<» HbBOOH. Should our comrades 
writs' revolution **S? £iT!h^" le^Oing ^ rty- of the German ' 
Hinds fiw toe£ to V«*f °*p 2^L ** eratified to receive 

vere contributed?!^ M«SonIr t ^ a f S?" 8trnC * 8 ^- lMdl ^ 
purposes for v/hidh thev Iwi'Itt ne >^ s aone >' ^fended, the 
contributions .»nJ2 m H 1 5? te ' • B ? C . tte ™tt"*» in vihich the 

ComaunUt IgiSkS S^'MEST' t S a11 this *• «*««" ° f 
. degeneratioS which ha° 4: t„ f n i!- fe ^ "^^ Conintern, a . 
■ parti C ul ? >c,4it?lictri v t, b ^!^ n ^J b J 6c " 1 y e Actors? foen one 
• or in «sn««e>i is hett^T^ k <"* srs * ^*> without <w 11 citation, 
.^asesfthe bourieoi s%. e 1L ?^lP r ' s ■*«»*■ ««*«*• run of 

end show thr-t all c^i^Its *^ ^ g en l rpli ?# ? n * is one toss 
.interests of the pw^tariet #£5tl «« e^ivUan itself hae the 

■ AM the eKcesse^oflt^lf^^^dh ir e T' w * ^ tl ° v; S^WalisM 

■ . arete, a XivisiOF o*> t-ivjj; VT\- i?' "? raust "S*et ofiein and 

'OTl? set- be cks. Give th^ SJSL?;J ?*nty-t;io year Derioc! of 

of varioue inSui%w= old story P bout the ee:ojal «teaos*U1y" 

Sisuse of^n^by^^Mndlvi^aS' "^^J" ^ e 0l(? st ^' ° f 
, in a false -.ernective vSZ ™J5 Si * **3£ ln l '^ vhole ***«£ -"> 
'. or the .labor moment in Swa^FS*!? -^ £»5£5? ™f™k ~ 

only'a nal^.^^rll SWfiSW&S Z^USS? 

- '^' ' ' ''-t ' '•■ "• ' J, ' 

• "- '■•- \ -:■ l ■ ■ k\ , . 



■ 



•Fa£e "25 . 




middle and .upper classes? flit, is, an incontestable fact Ci?t- tcUeii 
by and large the sex relationships between revolutions rips ere no -.-. 
enduring, more nal?jral, riore sensible, and — if you ^lsfcse — no -e 
moral than .all the exploiters of society, ] 

mm **%?«■ number four i-rtlhat I^Conuunirrte only use every in- 
" * Jlirenv *° ^ rthe ^* their o\m ends, that they ni^re present i^ny thinrs 
to the masses'. Ke gives details, for instance, that mrar sb-cilled 
"front" orgmizations ?.re dominr-ted "secretly" by th£ F,-r^, 

It is truly ppaziiig hov'lir. Gitlov/ stance every question on 
■ its ne.^, upside down, *n order to keep the proletariat in check 

8 Jratly spai^rdlllon- o^ dollars m slandering CoirauiLisa and eil- 

» fear Phobia In the 
tools } the "."^eiiSj, the 
cnmpfign. "Furthermore, 

"Democracy" sets, up hundred of- FROKT or^fnizations like the ^er- 

icsn Legion, the Committee 1a Aid the Allios, -Jie Hed Cross, etc. 

etc, to maintain its o\m system AGAZSi 1 tiife -proletariat, such ' 




"denocrrcV" ?nd "nor? lily » d tlov defends. B$t when "the 
set up their non-party racss.i organizations: \/hen the V&.1J3 



\/ork-?rs 



'n3ua.r0 of 



-,the proletariat (just like the vsnguard of t5e bourgeoisie in its 
ov/n cases) takes the lead in organizing such ^rou^s but does not /- 

at all time* reveal ±ti identity precisely because of the backward 
prejudices systematically built u"> by the bourgeoisie — vhen this 
is dona It becomes "immoral." 7e reject the policies of Sualinisa 
and its mechanical control of such "front" orfamz.-tions. Bufue 
do not therefore jump over -1th !Ir. Gitlov into the con of the 
bourgeoisie. 



llr. Gitlov may spe^; of "justice' 1 ia the abstra ct, of "mor 
-lity" in the ab stract , but Ln actual life he has a very oancret 
criterion, the^jourgeoi? CL..BS criterion. 






?rom our point of vieii v/e too have a CLASS criterion, but 
ours is of the opposite clas~, the proletariat. For us the judg- 
ment of Gitlov' s book rerte not on Gitlov* 8 personal chrra.cter- 
iGwics, or his "morality." For us Gitloif 1 s boo:: is a base, trea- 
cherous attempt to throw mud at IlarxisQ, to help defend capital isn 
AGAZL'ST the proletariat, to help the system of var and starvation, 1 
o± pocia^ sabotage, to perpetuate itself. rt)r us Gitlov/ 1 s polemiq 
against Com:7UnistTnorality is £ moat immoivl act, the i^jorllity 
of a stool-pigeon renegade. 



- , 



- • - 



.... J • 
- 

: - '. • ■ - - 



■ - 



--- ' :* : .' . - ■ ' . ' .- -A". - i